Political Suicide....Has The GOP Written Off The Women's Vote?

The objection is to inserting something into your body against your will, even if it's for life reasons?

So you are violently opposed to innoculations for schoolkids to enter school, be on sports teams, go to camps. The military can't require them either?

And none of this "soldiers or school children know what they're getting into." Internal physical exams are part of pregnancies. The Doctor needs to provide the patient with full information so the patient can give truly informed consent. If the patient refuses to cooperate with the doctor, the doctor can refuse the patient.

(please excuse the rant)

Originally posted by charles1952
The objection is to inserting something into your body against your will, even if it's for life reasons?

So you are violently opposed to innoculations for schoolkids to enter school, be on sports teams, go to camps. The military can't require them either?

And none of this "soldiers or school children know what they're getting into." Internal physical exams are part of pregnancies. The Doctor needs to provide the patient with full information so the patient can give truly informed consent. If the patient refuses to cooperate with the doctor, the doctor can refuse the patient.

No, the objection is to forcing a woman to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure to induce an emotional, hopefully guilt ridden, response. Even doctors are collectively against this.

I find your comment about "refusing to cooperate with doctor" offensive and creepy and gives me the picture of a forced penetration by some creepy doctor, drooling and telling a young girl "Look at what you're killing!"

Originally posted by Flatfish

Thanks for the input. I was curious as to how conservative women would view this initiative and whether or not it may affect your vote and while I respect your opinion on the subject, the fact that the woman doesn't have the right to opt out of this procedure seems a little disturbing to me and I would expect that many others would agree. But then, I've been wrong before.

I really appreciate the fact that you can disagree with me without calling me an idiot or marginalizing me (in one way or another) for my opinions. Thank you.

reply to post by TheOneElectric

your argument is based upon emotional and religious foundations.

I disagree with that statement, as well. To me, this has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with life. Even an athiest must value life, right?

You and I only seem to disagree as to the point where life begins.

reply to post by GeorgiaGirl


And we can respectfully disagree at that.

Nice tussling with you

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

I knew I shouldn't have gone off on that rant. I think I know where our disagreement might lie, but let me clear a little brush away first.

I know that seeing the picture of the baby (foetus?) might do several things including create an emotional response. But certainly arguments like

I find your comment about "refusing to cooperate with doctor" offensive and creepy and gives me the picture of a forced penetration by some creepy doctor, drooling and telling a young girl "Look at what you're killing!"

are designed for an emotional purpose. I suppose fighting fire with fire, eh? (As an aside, I don't know why you'd say my comment was offensive and creepy, that's the way hospitals and doctors work in my experience.) I'd like to call a truce on the use of emotion, if you agree.

No, the objection is to forcing a woman to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure to induce an emotional, hopefully guilt ridden, response.

The procedure is only seen as unnecessary if you first assume that no life is involved. Is there some way for a physician to give the fullest possible information to the patient without causing a reaction? I don't know, but I'd love to hear a suggestion. Maybe external ultrasounds? I don't know how good those are.

But where the argument seems to be is between "We want women to have the fullest possible information about her condition." And, "If you give her that information, she'll make an emotional decision instead of a detached, scientific one." Have I got that largely correct?

Thanks for talking with me and taking my rant so kindly.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
I really appreciate the fact that you can disagree with me without calling me an idiot or marginalizing me (in one way or another) for my opinions. Thank you.

You can do what you want. You can believe what you want.

But DON'T legislate my body. Its none of your business.

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
reply to post by Flatfish

 

This is a very invasive procedure that includes vaginal penetration.

So is abortion.....which is why the woman is there, after all...

The point of this law is to potentially save the life of the unborn baby. An ultrasound will show the mother that this is a LIFE. At early stages of pregnancy, transvaginal is the only type of ultrasound that will work.

As a woman, I have no problem with a law that requires another woman to have to consider her unborn child as a life before she has it removed. I don't consider it any more invasive than the abortion she is there to get.

So, as you can see by my post, I don't think this is an issue that would make me, a conservative woman, feel written off by the GOP.

This is such a stupid excuse. Women don't deny that it's a life. That's part of the burden they carry when they choose to abort. It's a painful difficult choice that is in their right to make.

Do we show presidents the enemy at dinner with their family before we bomb their home, so that the president sees that this is a LIFE? Of course not. It's part of the burden.

This invasive ultrasound is nothing but a punishment. Religious Christians who are taught not to judge think of these women as loose whores who can't keep their legs closed and so they seek every measure possible to make them feel worse.

There should be more love and support from the religious community for these situations. A religious person should be able to see the pain a woman is experiencing, accept her decision, and be ready to forgive her, not judge her.

Here is a relevant and timely story today

The GOP held a hearing today regarding the Contraception hub-bub with the Catholic Church, complete with a panel of 10 witnesses to testify...guess how many of them were men?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

"What I want to know is, where are the women?" Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) asked Issa before walking out of the hearing after the first panel. "I look at this panel, and I don't see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventative health care services, including family planning. Where are the women?"

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by windword

 

Dear windword,

I knew I shouldn't have gone off on that rant. I think I know where our disagreement might lie, but let me clear a little brush away first.

I know that seeing the picture of the baby (foetus?) might do several things including create an emotional response. But certainly arguments like

I find your comment about "refusing to cooperate with doctor" offensive and creepy and gives me the picture of a forced penetration by some creepy doctor, drooling and telling a young girl "Look at what you're killing!"

are designed for an emotional purpose. I suppose fighting fire with fire, eh? (As an aside, I don't know why you'd say my comment was offensive and creepy, that's the way hospitals and doctors work in my experience.) I'd like to call a truce on the use of emotion, if you agree.

No, the objection is to forcing a woman to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure to induce an emotional, hopefully guilt ridden, response.

The procedure is only seen as unnecessary if you first assume that no life is involved. Is there some way for a physician to give the fullest possible information to the patient without causing a reaction? I don't know, but I'd love to hear a suggestion. Maybe external ultrasounds? I don't know how good those are.

But where the argument seems to be is between "We want women to have the fullest possible information about her condition." And, "If you give her that information, she'll make an emotional decision instead of a detached, scientific one." Have I got that largely correct?

Thanks for talking with me and taking my rant so kindly.

With respect,
Charles1952

I think the idea that a woman needs to be forcibly shown a picture to ensure that she is aware that she is indeed pregnant suggests that women who seek abortion are ignorant to their condition and are morally deficient.

Since this procedure is not needed or recommended by doctors to ensure a safe abortion, it is only an attempt at convincing the women to change her mind, whether the doctor agrees or not. And since the woman can't opt out and has to "cooperate" with the doctor, this medical procedure becomes rape, by definition. That's why your comment was offensive to me.

I don't agree that an emotional decision is preferable to an unattached, scientific one. In fact, I think the opposite. This law's only purpose is to harass women into making an emotional decision. All the while, women are being mocked for being too emotional.

It definitely seems like the GOP has written off the women's vote, but then again what do I know? I think the same thing about any woman who follows religion. Everyone knows a major purpose of religion is to control women, keep them subservient. But that doesn't stop women from being religious.

I think women could save the planet but they are conditioned to drive their minds right into the ground and accept being disrespected and controlled, as being a good wife. Therefore they align themselves with religion and Republicans or Islam, or Catholic, or any of those institutions that believe in keeping woman under their thumb.

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

Thanks for expanding on your thoughts, may I offer some reactions?

I think the idea that a woman needs to be forcibly shown a picture to ensure that she is aware that she is indeed pregnant suggests that women who seek abortion are ignorant to their condition and are morally deficient.

That sounds as though you are saying that women are fully aware of their condition and have considered all the moral issues involved. If that's true, then how could seeing a picture make any difference? Yet it seems to. The woman, if she's fully aware of her condition, isn't seeing anything new or surprising, so why be afraid that it might make her change her mind? She already knows it doesn't she?

If she knew about her condition fully, the picture makes no difference.
If she didn't know about her condition fully, the doctor has an obligation to inform her.

You don't agree that an emotional decision is better than a detached one? Good, we agree. I don't think that either, and I don't know why you thought I did. And I didn't mock women for being too emotional, either.

What did you think about substituting external ultrasounds for internal ones? I thought it might go a long way to solving the problem of invasiveness.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by windword

 

Dear windword,

Thanks for expanding on your thoughts, may I offer some reactions?

I think the idea that a woman needs to be forcibly shown a picture to ensure that she is aware that she is indeed pregnant suggests that women who seek abortion are ignorant to their condition and are morally deficient.

That sounds as though you are saying that women are fully aware of their condition and have considered all the moral issues involved. If that's true, then how could seeing a picture make any difference? Yet it seems to. The woman, if she's fully aware of her condition, isn't seeing anything new or surprising, so why be afraid that it might make her change her mind? She already knows it doesn't she?

If she knew about her condition fully, the picture makes no difference.
If she didn't know about her condition fully, the doctor has an obligation to inform her.

You don't agree that an emotional decision is better than a detached one? Good, we agree. I don't think that either, and I don't know why you thought I did. And I didn't mock women for being too emotional, either.

What did you think about substituting external ultrasounds for internal ones? I thought it might go a long way to solving the problem of invasiveness.

With respect,
Charles1952

A woman can't just take a home pregnancy test, say from the .99 Cent Store and then go get an abortion. She has to undergo a pelvic exam, an ultrasound and blood test by a physician. Once she and her doctor are sure that she is indeed pregnant, options are discussed.

Who hasn't seen the posters of mutilated fetus' that protesters wave in front of clinics and the billboards of babies in the womb bought by pro-life communities? Why do they need an extra step, an intrusive, vaginal probe, above and beyond what they have already been through and what they will go through?

Abortion doctors are their staff are being murdered, threatened and publicly shamed. Women who visit these clinics are accused of murder and pelted with hatred. Clinics are being forced into closing or moving because of new and unusual requirements being put on them. Abortions are hard enough to obtain without throwing an addition hoop to jump through and expense to be paid.

Originally posted by charles1952
The woman, if she's fully aware of her condition, isn't seeing anything new or surprising, so why be afraid that it might make her change her mind? She already knows it doesn't she?

If she knew about her condition fully, the picture makes no difference.
If she didn't know about her condition fully, the doctor has an obligation to inform her.

I think we all can agree that any woman seeking an abortion is aware of her condition.

Which leaves these unneccessary invasive proceedures as nothing less than unwarranted punishment for women already facing a traumatic experience.

Once logic unmasks the rhetoric surrounding the bill, what is left is the sadism of idealogues.

Just my opinion.

reply to post by windword

Dear windword,

We seem to be finding more and more things to agree about.

Who hasn't seen the posters of mutilated fetus' that protesters wave in front of clinics

Abortion doctors are their staff are being murdered, threatened and publicly shamed. Women who visit these clinics are accused of murder and pelted with hatred.

Absolutely bad stuff, you're right.

But I still have two questions:

1.) Would a non-invasive, external ultrasound be acceptable? Would that solve the problem?

2.) Why does showing a woman an ultrasound, sometimes lead to a changed mind? Was it a surprise to her?

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by windword

 

Dear windword,

We seem to be finding more and more things to agree about.

Who hasn't seen the posters of mutilated fetus' that protesters wave in front of clinics

Abortion doctors are their staff are being murdered, threatened and publicly shamed. Women who visit these clinics are accused of murder and pelted with hatred.

Absolutely bad stuff, you're right.

But I still have two questions:

1.) Would a non-invasive, external ultrasound be acceptable? Would that solve the problem?

2.) Why does showing a woman an ultrasound, sometimes lead to a changed mind? Was it a surprise to her?

With respect,
Charles1952

What problem?

An external ultrasound is normally done during the initial evaluation along with a pelvic exam. Why should it be administered twice? If your saying it should always be done by law, I would like to know what the doctor's opinion on this are. Doctors are not usually in the business of dispensing morality.

Injecting any law that detours or limits a woman access to a safe medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy is unacceptable to me.

I don't know about the statistics on women changing their minds after seeing an ultrasound, but, I'm sure many change their minds after being coerced, chastised, humiliated and threatened. I wonder what is to become of those children, who were unwanted, but their mothers shamed into parenthood.

What if the vaginal ultrasound shows a birth defect? What happens when the tests reveal the worst. Is it okay for them to go ahead with their plans?

reply to post by spiritualzombie

This is such a stupid excuse. Women don't deny that it's a life.

Then why is it okay to end that life?

At what point does it become NOT okay to take a life? How do you define that? Is it at birth itself? 6 months gestation? 3 months gestation?

As a society we ALL agree that there is a point when it becomes murder.

The disagreement we have is: at WHAT point is it murder?

And by the way, I do not find this to be stupid at all. I find it heartbreaking that we have so solidly decided as a nation that the woman has the "right to choose" no matter what.

I do NOT judge the women who are making this heartbreaking decision. But I DO judge the nation's moral climate that has made this decision okay. We should ALL be outraged at the idea that women are killing their unborn babies in large numbers. It should be OUTRAGEOUS that MY position is the minority one, and apparently the unpopular one here on ATS.

I will NEVER back down from my position of defending these unborn babies. Politically correct or not. And even if every person on the internet says I am an idiot for thinking this.

reply to post by Flatfish


I'm absolutely convinced that the GOP has absolutely NO intentions of taking control of the white house next election. I don't believe for one second they intend of taking ownership or sharing any responsibility for our current state of affairs. Go ask them. None of it is their fault.

The GOP will not be running the white house in 2013.

Anyone want to make any bets?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
I really appreciate the fact that you can disagree with me without calling me an idiot or marginalizing me (in one way or another) for my opinions. Thank you.

You can do what you want. You can believe what you want.

But DON'T legislate my body. Its none of your business.

What dream world do you live in? There are TONS of laws that legislate what you can or cannot do with your body. A few obvious examples are: drug use, selling your body for sex, driving while intoxicated, walking around naked in public places.

The heart of this legislation is not aimed at "your" body, but the small helpless body growing inside of it.

The GOP is banking on the angry white man and religious vote.

They have alienated or insulted nearly everyone else....which is why they are going to lose big come election time.